Circumcision ruled as 'bodily harm'

[ZaraKitty]

I vote for not forcing it on children. You can get it done as an adult if you like.

If the skin was THAT bad, evolution dictates it would have fallen off as all the boys who die from having foreskin wouldn't reproduce, but the ones who didn't have the skin would live on to reproduce, so I think it's okay to have it until you're an adult.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Curious to the person above with the video. Are you vegetarian? Cause I can bring up videos that will shock and horror you also. Maybe I had a good doctor because the one I watched in personwas safe clean and luckily done with no reaction from the child. And during the week to follow while it healed the baby showed no discomfort. Not saying all are going to be this perfect and maybe it was an exception. But videos meant to deter will do just that and I can find at least one with any topic. Want to see how bad wind farms are? Want to see the conditions involved with cofee farmers? Lets be rational. As best we can. I hope I came across properly for discussion this time around.

Edited July 14, 2012 by Aus Der Box Skeptisch

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

http://www.circinfo.net/

SUMMARY

Circumcision of males represents a "surgical vaccine" against a wide variety of infections, adverse medical conditions and potentially fatal diseases over their lifetime, and also protects their sexual partners. In experienced hands, this common, inexpensive procedure is very safe, and can be pain-free. Although it can be performed at any age, the ideal time is infancy. The benefits vastly outweigh risks. The public health benefits are enormous, and include protection from urinary tract infections, that are common over the lifetime, inferior genital hygiene, smegma, sexually transmitted HIV, oncogenic types of human papillomavirus, genital herpes, syphilis and chancroid, penile cancer, and possibly prostate cancer, phimosis, paraphimosis, thrush, and inflammatory skin conditions such as balanitis and balanoposthitis. In women circumcision of the male partner provides substantial protection from cervical cancer, genital herpes, bacterial vaginosis (formerly termed "gardnerella"), possibly Chlamydia (that can cause pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, and ectopic pregnancy), and other infections.

Circumcision has socio-sexual benefits and reduces sexual problems with age and diabetes. It has no adverse effect on penile sensitivity, erectile function, or sensation during sexual arousal and is reported to enhance the sexual experience for men. Most women prefer the circumcised penis for appearance, hygiene, lower infection risk and sexual activity. At least half of all uncircumcised males will develop one or more problems over their lifetime caused by their foreskin, and many will suffer and die as a result. The benefits exceed the risks by over 100 to 1, and if fatalities are taken into account in men and their sexual partners the benefit is orders of magnitude higher than this. Given the convincing epidemiological evidence and biological support, routine

circumcision should be highly recommended by all health professionals.

First link I saw when asked about health benefits.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

I vote for not forcing it on children. You can get it done as an adult if you like.

If the skin was THAT bad, evolution dictates it would have fallen off as all the boys who die from having foreskin wouldn't reproduce, but the ones who didn't have the skin would live on to reproduce, so I think it's okay to have it until you're an adult.

Boys usually do mpt die although infection and further trauma can happen to the young. Its after sexual maturity in men the problems arise likely after his genes have been passed down. So this point although looks very good on the surface and I would have agreed had I not researched the subject would not effect evolution in any way.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

I'd like to correct an error above in my first few posts. I kept saying UK this and UK that. I am very sorry as this was a ruling made in germany. Although it would have been funny to circumcise myself in front of the queen it would have likely just confused the queen as this was not even in her country. LOL. And I was very strong worded in my first few posts also. I could have went without saying disgusting in the first one especially. I do however still stand by my opinion and for further discussion on this topic while I am participating I will make sure to not go overboard with my comments. I was provoked to write this post after I reread though these two pages and saw thar I made errors. I always feel compelled to be honest and figured I needed to address some points about my own posts that were simply incorrect whether factual or social.

[shadowhive]

I just shared my post on break and the responses given back to me and 11 more people wish to be counted too. There were two women and nine males all believes it should be a choice and while the topic is a tough one to discuss every male agreed they felt better off being cut. So lets chaalk it up to personal choice. If not then you are all better than a dozen of us Americans. That should make you feel better about yourselves. I am sorry a discussion like this has to become who is better and who are barbaric but that's where this road lead and this is a response to the discussion whether its approved of or not these are our opinions being shared with you.

How do they know they're 'better off cut' since such a procedure was done shortly after birth?

Personally, I'm against it being done to children unless there's a medical reason behind it. As others have said if anyone wanted to remove any other body part from their child, without medical reasoning, they'd be condemned openly, yet this? It's allowed. It makes absolutely no sense to me. If I ever have a child I'd certainly not put them through any surgery unless it was medically necessary.

If people want the choice to do this procedure, than fine but you know who should have the choice? The person getting the surgery done to them NOT their parents. Since a primary reason for this surgery is religion than these parents are essentially forcibly marking their children as a member of that religion.

[Babe Ruth]

An interesting case. I agree with the court's decision.

That said, I allowed that my son be circumcised, just as I was.

So it seems true, in the name of religion and public perception, pain and torture is inflicted and the law protects it.

[ZaraKitty]

I've never heard of a boy dying because he had foreskin, link to some articles?

[itsnotoutthere]

I've never heard of a boy dying because he had foreskin, link to some articles?

God point. Of course it's 'body harm' physically doing this to a child is abuse. Would it be ok if i took my two year old to a parlor & got him tattooed?

[questionmark]

God point. Of course it's 'body harm' physically doing this to a child is abuse. Would it be ok if i took my two year old to a parlor & got him tattooed?

According to some: If your religion calls for it it is OK.

[FLOMBIE]

Or scarring, for example. OK to many in Africa.

But what I never get is: We (rightly) outlaw female circumcision, which of course is extremer in some cases, but male circumcision is not only alright to do, no, it's even a benefit! For me it's both the same: Brutal ancient practices, that should have been abolished long ago.

[itsnotoutthere]

According to some: If your religion calls for it it is OK.

Oh well, if religion calls for it that's ok then. Never mind whether the child wants it done or not or indeed if the child stays with that religion, the damage is done.

Edited July 14, 2012 by itsnotoutthere

[Rlyeh]

The disgusting bacteria infested flap of skin is now mandatory. Sad day this is. Way to go UK. If I had mine I'd cut it off myself in front of the queen with a rusty spoon sharpened on the sidewalk on my way in just to prove its better to have allowed a doctor perform the procedure in a safe sanitary environment. Next since Europeans tend to see arm hair as natural and normal (which it is and the point is coming up next) the UK will make it mandatory for people to keep it taking away their decision to shave or not. Which is a personal choice. It may not be disgusting but should it be the next mandatory thing punishable by law?

Circumcision is a safe procedure now it forced into back alleys or other countries. Way to go UK. I'm proud of you.

Do you cut off anything else that gets dirty?

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Do you cut off anything else that gets dirty?

yes, my fingernails. Lmao

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

I've posted a list of benefits. And according to a poster above how do they know pretty much sums up that the procedure has no effect on thee person. Zara your redundant question has been answered. And for someone demanding that people understand yourself you are very quick to judge others. To the rest if you want to talk facts instead of " would you cut off insert extreme body part " that would be great otherwise compare it to something similar like skin tags or something not including limbs as your just showing yourself as ignorant and malice for the sake of righteousness. Glad to hear though you have made your own choice as that is all I would ask for you is you have the right to make that choice. I hope everyone has a good weekend.

[FLOMBIE]

In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. But in many of those studies, the protective effect of circumcision was no longer seen after factors like smegma and phimosis were taken into account.

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/PenileCancer/DetailedGuide/penile-cancer-prevention

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Smegma and phimosis which is reduced by circ yes? Link posted earlier.

[FLOMBIE]

Read my link.

Those who aren't circumcised can also lower their risk of penile cancer by practicing good hygiene. Most experts agree that circumcision should not be recommended solely as a way to prevent penile cancer.

If you wash, it is the same as having no forskin.

Phimosis is a condition. In this case a circumcision is necessary.

[ShadowSot]

In the developed world, you're better off washing yourself and wearing a condom.

S'why the AMA doesn't recommend this procedure as part of routine birth procedure.

[Michelle]

If anyone is interested in the facts from the US here they are....

http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/

By the way, it has been much less a religious thing as it is cultural. In my generation it was usually assumed that boys would be circumcised, but the practice has fallen off steadily since then. As a side note, I have never talked to a man that had any ill feelings towards his parents about having it done or regretted it being done to them.

[questionmark]

If anyone is interested in the facts from the US here they are....

http://www.cirp.org/...statistics/USA/

By the way, it has been much less a religious thing as it is cultural. In my generation it was usually assumed that boys would be circumcised, but the practice has fallen off steadily since then. As a side note, I have never talked to a man that had any ill feelings towards his parents about having it done or regretted it being done to them.

...most probably because they never realized that there could be a difference...

[Michelle]

...most probably because they never realized that there could be a difference...

If it came between it being more sensitive and *ahem* lasting longer, I've found the general consensus is preferably the latter.

[FLOMBIE]

But that's not how it is.

[Michelle]

But that's not how it is.

Tell them that...

It seems this is the main bone of contention.

Edited July 14, 2012 by Michelle

[FLOMBIE]

I tell you that. I definitely do not suffer under premature ejaculations, darling.

Edit: Does anyone really believe a lover's quality (or stamina) is determined on weather he has a foreskin or not?

Edited July 14, 2012 by FLOMBIE